FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1959
1959 - 0882.PDF
27 March 1959 Correspondence The Editor of "Flight" is not necessarily in agreement with the viewsexpressed by correspondents in these columns. Names and addresses of writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases accompany letters. Difficulties of the Independents /"WER the past ten or so years the independent operators have*~* largely built up their businesses on trooping and on inclusive-tour flying. The R.A.F. are increasing their share of trooping at an ever-increasing rate and we now learn that B.E.A. are to enter the field of inclusive tours. Let us be fair: the independents wouldlike the lucrative scheduled routes now flown by B.E.A., yet no one suggests that the Corporation should be required to forgothem. Similarly, why should B.E.A. muscle-in on what has become accepted as the independents' "bread and butter"? Afterall, the independents pioneered this field when all else was denied them. The directors of many independent companies are in a dilemma.They want new aircraft and they can raise the purchase money; but if they re-equip, will there be enough work to justify thisstep? Some sort of assurance must be given if they are to be competitive in the world's charter market. Without it more experi-enced and skilled employees (I include aircrew, engineers and commercial sections) will be laid off and lost to aviation. Let us, then, have a clear statement of air transport policy andwith it a tangible acknowledgement of the part to be played by the independent companies. Dymchurch, Kent. R. K. SELF. Conservatism in the CockpitA S an ex-aircraft draughtsman (now working on missiles) with• a small amount of flying experience I should like to comment on Cdr. Goodhart's criticisms of present-day cockpit layouts(Flight, December 26). The commander is quite right up to the point that the man in the cockpit has a much clearer view ofrequirements than has the man at the drawing-board. The pilot has the hardware in front of him and the designer has to visualizeall the problems in advance. From here on, however, several argu- ments can be raised on both sides on the subject of "Was Wilburright or do we have our controls crossed?" The best method of rudder control would be the use of a controlwheel. When control of the rudder is by hand in this way it is better to act in the natural sense as in the case of a bicycle or motorcar. Having decided, however—as the early aviators presumably did—that the pilot's hands had enough to do in controlling pitchand roll, I think that the right-foot, right-turn method presents less of a psychological problem to a pupil than would the need toremember "right foot, left turn" and vice versa. The right foot and left stick movement is an awkward one to execute. The next point is the location of the control column. Certainlyin large aircraft the column or wheel is bulky and obstructs both the pilot's view of the instruments and access to the seat; but thisargument does not apply to small machines, which usually have a relatively small "stick." On the smaller types there is no arm-rest on which to mount a control handle, while on the larger air- craft the arm-rests have to fold for ease of access to the seat—installation of an arm-rest control would therefore be a difficult problem except in the case of electrically powered controls.Furthermore, I believe that most pupils would find it easier to learn to fly with the control handle mounted directly in front ofthem rather than at one side. Another possible solution is to replace the control column bya handle protruding from the instrument panel and having fore- and-aft movement for pitch control, lateral movement for rollingand torsional movement for turning. One basic disadvantage common to both this method and the arm-rest handle, however,is that wrist movement is coarser than a full arm movement, due to the shorter working-arm on the pilot and the stick. As for the instrument panel, it is vertical not because (as sug-gested) it is easier that way, but because it takes up less space than a sloping panel. Carrying the argument for sloping panels to itslogical conclusion, the panels would need to be arranged in an arc around the pilot and this would prevent the use of a common con-trol panel for both captain and co-pilot. An interesting point is why, with the introduction of covered fuselages, the instrumentpanel was not s'oped to obtain daylight instrument illumination. The answer to this may be that the panel lighting might be a dis-traction at night, the daytime inconvenience of a vertical panel beine less dangerous. A further solution would be to have a verticalpanel with sloping instruments, but this layout might mean that some instruments were obscured by others, and would be rt anger -. ous as a source of injury in the event or a crash landing. Finally, a vertical panel mounted in the shadow of the coaming with 441 luminous or dimly lit dials avoids difficulties caused by shadowsand reflected light which a sloping panel would involve. On the question of left-hand circuits, it does appear wrong tohave the pilot on the left when one aircraft gives way to another on its starboard side. Let us take this question from the beginning,however, when we had a single pilot located centrally. This was followed by tandem seating, in which layout (with the pilots stillseated centrally) it made no difference whether circuits were left- handed or right-handed. The decision to make circuits left-handedmay have been followed on the introduction of side-by-side seat- ing, by the ruling that the pilot's view during the circuit and land-ing was more important than that during the en route phase of the flight, when the second pilot could assist if necessary. The choiceof left-hand circuits may well have been made because a left turn is often regarded as a "natural" turn for right-handed pilots. Toalter the present state of affairs now would mean changing the first pilot over to the right and making all circuits right-handed, involv-ing considerable instrument and control changes in many existing aircraft and the re-training of all pilots. It may be that, in less timethan it would take to effect these changes, transport aircraft pilots will be relying entirely on radar for mid-air collision warning. In conclusion I must agree with Cdr. Goodhart that designersdo not do enough piloting to appreciate fully many of the problems involved. But even a chief designer must follow internationalstandards laid down by official bodies, and it is surely the respon- sibility of the airlines and ministries who order the aircraft, aidedby the pilots' associations, to decide whether the present standards should be altered.This is not an attempt to pass on the responsibility for what are basically design matters, but requirements are constantly changingand so are conditions in the cockpit. The designer has usually several points to consider in each detail of the design, a fact notalways appreciated by his critics, and a design therefore is a com- promise between the various factors involved. At this point weshould remember that the first designers were also the leading pilots of their day and their decisions were made under less severeconditions. So please don't shoot the pianist—the piano may need tuning. Stevenage, Herts. J. ANDREWS. Flight-deck Layout TT was with great pleasure that I read Mr. H. T. Thompson's•*• letter under the above heading in Flight of February 20. Though he did not state his qualifications, I sincerely hope thisis a case of at least one pilot adopting a sensible point of view. The increased complications introduced by larger and fasterairliners do not call for more pilots in the cockpit, but rather for a skilled crew of specialists in the respective fields of piloting,navigation, engineering and communications, under the command of one experienced captain, who, like the captain of a ship, wouldnot be expected to perform any specific duty, but who would have the experience and qualifications to supervise the entire crew, andtake over any function in an emergency. I, too, look forward to "rationalization" in the cockpit, and inthe aviation industry as a whole, replacing the exaggerated influ- ences exerted today by national pride and individual trade unionsflouting international agreements; and, like Mr. Thompson, I hope to be of some service in this respect. Richmond, Surrey. A. SEGALL,Technical Representative, Europe, International Airline Navigators Council. Everest by Sailplane ? HTHE first people to fly over Everest or to climb it were British,•*• and it would be appropriate if British pilots were the first to soar over Everest in sailplanes. The techniques of mountain soaring are well known and haveenabled long and high flights to be made over the Alps; the major problems are purely financial and political. It is doubtful whetherany worthwhile scientific purpose would be served by such an expedition, and as a purely recreational proposition it is hardlyworth the effort and expense; considering it as a question of national prestige, however, some attempt to organize the projectcould be made if sufficient financial support were forthcoming. Marlow, Bucks. . . B. JAMES. Club Training for Commercial Pilots YI7ITH reference to your article "Club Training for Commercial* * Pilots" (March 6), I should like to make two points about the imoressions given by the author of the article. The first is that the Elstree students come to Ealing for instruc-tion in the identification of marine lights. They do not, as he sueeests, come here to listen to recorded R/T. conversations. The second is that Captain Brook Williams is employed byAvigation Ltd.; only part of his duties is to attend Elstree as reauired for the ground instruction in navigation. London, W.5. W. V. CANTON,Principal, Avigation Ltd.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
